Program meant to benefit livestock accused of killing animals indiscriminately.

An investigation by The Sacramento Bee has discovered that the Department of Agriculture's Wildlife Services program has killed 50,000 harmless animals from more than 150 species, some endangered, since the year 2000. Meant to protect livestock from predators, the program seems to be using methods that are not especially well targeted.

Protected golden and bald eagles, kit foxes, river otters, wolverines, and pet dogs are among the creatures that have fallen foul of the animal traps, snares, and poisons used by the service. Over the same period, 10 people have been killed in crashes during aerial gunning runs—the practice of shooting predator species from aircraft. At least another 18 employees, not to mention "several" members of the public, have suffered exposure to cyanide, The Bee reports, having accidentally sprung traps meant for coyotes (of which the service has managed to kill a million in that time).

The Bee asserts that the Wildlife Services' methods are "at odds with science, inhumane, and sometimes illegal," asserting that they degrade natural habitats, reduce biodiversity, and encourage disease. The report claims that the service fails to report the accidental killing of endangered species when it is required by law to do so, quoting a trapper who claims he was told to literally bury golden eagles trapped in snares.

Former employees and activists paint a picture of an unaccountable organization with a public visage that masks the reality. "If you read the brochures, go on their website, they play down the lethal control," ex-employee Carter Niemeyer told The Bee. "It's smoke and mirrors. It's a killing business. And it ain't pretty."

Wildlife Services Deputy Administrator William Clay claims that its trapping methods are at least 95 percent effective, and biologist Elizabeth Copper, who has worked with the service, defended the program's efforts to protect the endangered California Least Tern.

James Holloway
James is a contributing science writer. He's a graduate of the Open University, with a B.Sc. in Technology and a Diploma in Design and Innovation. Twitter@jamesholloway

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

Agreed, is it really all this black and white? Is there any documented evidence of this brutality such as satellite images showing helicopters with muzzle flashes coming out of them perhaps? Or even better would be someone on the ground to take pictures of the aftermath. If they're going to shock and awe us, they need those powerful images to back it up.

The problem is that people don't want to hurt the animals but they don't want them around and crimping their style, either. Look at the mountain lion management efforts out west (as well as coyote, etc.) Don't hurt the animals (no hunting allowed, etc.) but when they show up and start killing someone's pets, the pet owner wants "something done". New Jersey loves its bears (don't hunt them!)... until they start tearing into people's chickens, trash cans, and houses and then "something needs to be done" because they are causing problems. Hunters in the USA voluntarily pay lots of money to hunt (licenses, not even including hunting equipment) to, ultimately, help the government manage wildlife. If hunters don't do it, then someone ultimately has to... usually being paid from government funds (and ultimately from your tax dollars).

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

You may certainly feel that way about the animals, but what of the *ten* employees killed since 2000? That does not sound like an acceptable level of loss of life to me.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

Because indiscriminate means are justified when the objective is reasonable?

Don't insult yourself.

However noble the purpose, it should be pursued with skill and careful discernment. And it wouldn't hurt to examine the purpose carefully while we're at it. That isn't some fluffy inflammatory hippie nonsense, it's just good stewardship.

It's fine to do difficult work that is often misunderstood, but there is never any excuse for being sloppy and lazy about it. When programs important to ecosystems and the preservation of species involve needless death in those ecosystems and killing of those protected species, it's worth a look.

And if the job is too hard to do without someone making sure the killing isn't reckless, then someone stronger needs to be doing the job. Simple as that.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

I love fluff pieces that do not offer a better solution they just try for a strong emotional non-thinking reaction from readers.

Maybe they could try to get people to adopt the next 1 million coyotes? "Coyote with slight rabies, free to good home.". "Have you always dreamed of owning vermin? NOW YOU CAN!"

The problem is that people don't want to hurt the animals but they don't want them around and crimping their style, either. Look at the mountain lion management efforts out west (as well as coyote, etc.) Don't hurt the animals (no hunting allowed, etc.) but when they show up and start killing someone's pets, the pet owner wants "something done". New Jersey loves its bears (don't hunt them!)... until they start tearing into people's chickens, trash cans, and houses and then "something needs to be done" because they are causing problems. Hunters in the USA voluntarily pay lots of money to hunt (licenses, not even including hunting equipment) to, ultimately, help the government manage wildlife. If hunters don't do it, then someone ultimately has to... usually being paid from government funds (and ultimately from your tax dollars).

Reminds me of a recent newscast here. A farmer is PO'd about his cattle being attacked by migrating Florida panthers (a protected species). Yet, the same farmer was championing the protection of that species just months before the migration of males moving south to mate with females.

I've long said. You can't build well into certain species territory, and then complain when you see the end result. This happens all the time in areas where idiots built right next to the Florida Everglades, then complain about gators, venomous snakes (Cotton mouths, Rattlers, and Coral snakes) showing up regularly. If you choose to build in a predator's territory, you deal with the consequences. You don't expect to exterminate every predator in that area YOU encroached upon.

I've seen gators where I used to live (never fed them or approached, as I didn't want to habituate them to people). I never called animal services. I just ignored them, and waited for them to leave. And they always did. The only time I support killing an animal is when it's you or them with no other way out. Then I'm a spiciest, and I always go for team human.

"I have an idea! Let's put out every single naturally occurring fire! You know, the ones that burn off the natural undergrowth and spark new life! Let's put out these fires while they smoulder, leaving the undergrowth to spiral out of control. That way, when careless campers fires have errant sparks, they'll accidentally instigate massive wildfires on a level never before seen!"

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

In your rush to rage mightily against the Great PETA Conspiracy Against Freedom, you seemed to have missed an important detail. It's not about hunting to manage population and such, its about my, and your tax dollars being spent to"to protect livestock from predators". Essentially, the same scumbag Ranchers that get to use public land for nothing also get free "pest" control.

Personally, I'd rather have the beauty and diversity that Wildlife brings to the world than a system that helps produce more overweight, mouth-breathing morons that bask in the glow of reality TV, breeding, shitting, and polluting the soon-to-be giant feedlot called Earth.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

You may certainly feel that way about the animals, but what of the *ten* employees killed since 2000? That does not sound like an acceptable level of loss of life to me.

Try being employed by the military. Then ten might seem to be a very pleasant figure..

Those ten were also involved in gun runs. Each flight would have three or four people, Typically flying at low altitude in remote terrain in either a helicopter or small plane. Both of which don't handle uncontrolled landings well. The article suggests the data was tracked starting in 2000. Over the span of twelve years that figure doesn't seem out of the ordinary given the nature of the job.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

You may certainly feel that way about the animals, but what of the *ten* employees killed since 2000? That does not sound like an acceptable level of loss of life to me.

Try being employed by the military. Then ten might seem to be a very pleasant figure..

I appreciate you justify this line in the following paragraph and I have no idea if your assessment of helicopter hazards is accurate but I can't help but laugh at a comparison of the department of agriculture and the military.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

I love fluff pieces that do not offer a better solution they just try for a strong emotional non-thinking reaction from readers.

Maybe they could try to get people to adopt the next 1 million coyotes? "Coyote with slight rabies, free to good home.". "Have you always dreamed of owning vermin? NOW YOU CAN!"

The article isn't about killing coyotes, nor does it argue we should be adopting them and hugging them. It's about a government program that, while killing coyotes and other predators, inflicts collateral damage on non-targeted species, including endangered species and humans. The objection is to the indiscriminate methods the agency uses to meet its objective, not to its ojective itself.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

++

The title and article tone are completely inappropriate by Arsian standards. The community expects objective commentary expressing all sides of an issue, not a sensationalized editorial piece.

Killing problematic animals (even endangered ones) does not phase me. I grew up around bear and cougar, I understand that sometimes, killing a problematic critter is the most efficient solution (coupled with education to reduce conflicts--don't leave trash outside overnight in bear country for instance). It's the killing non-problem animals that I really have a problem with. This isn't an unknown problem in ecological circles by any means.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

++

The title and article tone are completely inappropriate by Arsian standards. The community expects objective commentary expressing all sides of an issue, not a sensationalized editorial piece.

Oh, bullshit. Ars runs opinion and editorial pieces regularly. The only time anyone complains is when they disagree with the opinion proffered. Stop being so duplicitous.

bh5505 wrote:

horrible article, i don't see how this is at all relevant to Ars' readership or fits within any sort of journalistic standards. This sort of material should stay on James' blog.

This I agree with. I see no real scientific value in the article as presented. Ecological stories need to be backed up by some real hard science.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

Ars is decrying the methods, which are indiscriminate, dangerous, and ultimately harmful to the environment and their desired ends. They aren't disputing the need for population control of certain species, as PETA (that hypocritical extremist group) would.

However, in my opinion, any population control solution is really just a band-aid for the more underlying problem of over-hunting, indiscriminate destruction of natural ecosystems due to construction and industry, and introduction of alien species to an ecosystem. We can maintain hunting, city expansion, and industrial development while being more conscientious of how we're impacting the environment and being more careful to not cause further damage. However, it's not in the economic interest of some groups (or they just don't care), so it's a prospect that's slow to gain traction.

This kind if inflammatory headline and fluff article meat belong on PETA's front page, not Ars'. Where is the meager effort to explain why wildlife hunting programs, while seemingly unnecessary to laymen, are actually important to not only the ecosystem but the animal species being hunted. Here we go again.

I love fluff pieces that do not offer a better solution they just try for a strong emotional non-thinking reaction from readers.

Maybe they could try to get people to adopt the next 1 million coyotes? "Coyote with slight rabies, free to good home.". "Have you always dreamed of owning vermin? NOW YOU CAN!"

The article isn't about killing coyotes, nor does it argue we should be adopting them and hugging them. It's about a government program that, while killing coyotes and other predators, inflicts collateral damage on non-targeted species, including endangered species and humans. The objection is to the indiscriminate methods the agency uses to meet its objective, not to its ojective itself.

It's really hard killing lots of things without doing some collateral damage. War is hell. We've been doing it a very long time, and while we've gotten better at it, it's a known factor. With this in mind I propose we start using predator drones to control certain animal populations (name fits!). Not only would would this decrease collateral damage overall, but I'd give my left arm to see a coyote be targeted with a hellfire missile. F'ing Awesome (if not a touch unfeasible).

I've long said. You can't build well into certain species territory, and then complain when you see the end result. This happens all the time in areas where idiots built right next to the Florida Everglades, then complain about gators, venomous snakes (Cotton mouths, Rattlers, and Coral snakes) showing up regularly. If you choose to build in a predator's territory, you deal with the consequences. You don't expect to exterminate every predator in that area YOU encroached upon.

I've seen gators where I used to live (never fed them or approached, as I didn't want to habituate them to people). I never called animal services. I just ignored them, and waited for them to leave. And they always did. The only time I support killing an animal is when it's you or them with no other way out. Then I'm a spiciest, and I always go for team human.

I've spent time around all of those (although, coral snakes are very rare around here).

The other issue is that when a species is removed from hunting, the Department of Wildlife also "loses" several thousand people (depending on the species/etc.) helping them do their job. Now it's down to however many dozen per state. So for things like deer, which breed in numbers, in order to cull the numbers needed to sustain the herd, the only way they can do it given how much person power they have is by using poison and other 'broad spectrum' methods. If the herd isn't managed properly, bad diseases can set in and devastate the herd (or whatever, depending on the species) also, the herd can grow to be large in number and cause other problems by 'invading' the areas that humans have moved into. So, only a few people needing to cull a few hundred animals in a short time may put out poison baits... which have the unfortunate probability of also poisoning livestock or pets that stumble across the poisoned bait, etc.

From an article I read about mountain lions, for example, are territorial. Once a male cat reaches a certain age, it must move on to find its own territory or the local dominant male will try to kill it. Because mountain lions cannot be hunted in Utah, those cats when they move out have to go *somewhere* and unfortunately, one of the nearby places is Salt Lake City. So, the government hires a guy to go out every year and kill some of the mountain lions to keep the human/mountain lion interaction to a minimum. Alternatively, they could sell a few dozen licenses and get more funds in as well as not having to hire someone to do the job or at least let that guy do something else more useful and let the people willing to pay the government to do the job do it.

"I have an idea! Let's put out every single naturally occurring fire! You know, the ones that burn off the natural undergrowth and spark new life! Let's put out these fires while they smoulder, leaving the undergrowth to spiral out of control. That way, when careless campers fires have errant sparks, they'll accidentally instigate massive wildfires on a level never before seen!"

This goes hand in hand with my previous comment.

Our out of control forest fires that we get to deal with annually are a direct result of stupid policies such as that one. Some Native American tribes used to hunt using controlled forest fires, which had the added benefit of removing the underbrush. It's healthy for a forest to have a cleansing fire now and then. We, as a society are just too concerned with keeping things looking like a picture postcard for eternity. Nature doesn't work like that; it's always changing.

horrible article, i don't see how this is at all relevant to Ars' readership or fits within any sort of journalistic standards. This sort of material should stay on James' blog.

Ars publishes articles in scientific fields. This might not be a typical article on a new discovery published in some journal, but it does report on something that may have an affect on how US government deals with wildlife and environmental problems in the country. The USDA probably executes the lion's share of the work related to wildlife that is required by the US government, and anyone who proceeds into a career in more "macro" fields of biology in the US will deal with people from the USDA eventually. It is a far reaching organization that has its hands in a lot of programs. If a negative report such as this one influences a large amount of the populace it will certainly have an affect on how our government deals with conservation and the environment. This might not be a part of the biological field a lot of people see, but it is there.

I will agree with you that the article does seem a little inflammatory because of the title and that it seems to repeat what is repeated the the Bee article, but then again without it we wouldn't be talking right now either.

and yet no one cares that some people died because of this. Who cares about the wild animal part of the story, I want to hear the details about the 10 people who died and how I can shoot birds out of planes.